THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus MADAN MOHAN NAGAR

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 05-01-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
MADAN MOHAN NAGAR 
January 5, 1967 
B 
(K. SUBBA RAO C. J., J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM JJ.] 
Civil S?rvice-Officer retired stating "outlived his service"-Whether 
casts a stignia, and a1nounts to puntsl11ne11t. 
The respondent was compulsorily retired from service under article 
465A, note (I) of the U.P. Civil Service Regulation, after be had com-
pleted more than 25 years of qualifying service. The order of retirement 
stated that the respondent "haJ outlived hh utility". The responden~ 
challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court quashed the 
order. 
In appeal to this Court. the appellant contende~ that the reason 
that the respondent bad outlived bis utility did not show that the order 
of compulsory retirement amounted to an ordc·r of dismissal or removal 
because in every case of compulsory retirement it was implied that the 
person had outlived his usefulness. 
HELD : There was no force in the contention. 
The test to he applied is : coes the order of compulsory retirement 
cast an aspersion or attach a stigma to the officer when it purports to 
retire him compulsorily. In the present case the order did cast a stigma 
on the respondent. [336 G] 
Jagdish Mitter v. U11io11 of India A.I.R. [1964] S.C. 449. followed 
Two tests are derived from Shayam Lal's case : the first is whether 
the action is by way of punishment and to find that out it is necessary 
that a charge or imputation against the officer is made the copdition of 
the exercise of the power; the second is whether by compulsory retire-
ment the officer is losing the benefit he bas already earned as be does by 
dismissal or removal. If the first test is applied in this case it is quite 
clear that the charge or imputation "that the respondent had outlived bis 
utility" was made the. condition of the exercise oi the power. [338 E] 
Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [1965) I S.C.R. 26 followed. 
Abdul Ahad v. The Inspector General of Po/ic.c, U.P. A.I.R. (1965) 
All. 142. overruled. 
CIVIL' APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 997 of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated. 
July 25, 1963 oftheAllahabadHigh Courtin Special Appeal No. 431 
of 1962. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, C. B. Agarwa/a and 0. P. Rana,. 
for the appellant. 
J.P. Goyal and B. P. Jha, for the respondent. 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1967) 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. The respondent, Shri Madan Mohan Nagar, filed a 
Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for 
·quashing the order of compulsory retirement dated July 28, 1960, 
passed against him. The order of compulsory retirement was in the 
following terms: 
"I am directed to say that the Governor has been 
pleased to order in the public interest under Article 465A 
and Note(!) thereof of the Civil Service Regulations, the 
compulsory retirement with effect from September I, 1960 · 
of Sri Madan Mohan Nagar, Director State Museum 
Luck~ow who completed 52 years of age on July 
1, 1960, and 2g years ar.d 3 months of qualifying service 
on 31-5-1960 as he has outlived his utility." 
The learned Single Judge who heard the petition quashed the 
order on the ground that "Rule 465 of the Civil Service Regulations 
as amendeo hy the U .P. Go.vernment while providing a criterion for 
1he guidance of Government when inflicting compulsory retirement 
on a government servant never .heless violates the guarantee of 
equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment under 
Article 16(1 )" of the Constitution. He further held that the order 
i!•? ting compulsory retirement on the petitioner was invalid 
because it was passed in violation of the principles of natural 
justice. 
The State appealed and the Division Bench on appeal upheld 
the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the 
order of compulsory retirement was passed in violation of the 
provisions 
of art. 311 of the Constitution and was, therefore. 
ultra 1·ires. 
The State having obtained special leave, the appeal 
is now before us. 
Before we deal with the arguments of the learned counsel for the 
appellant, we may give a few facts and set out Article 465(A) and 
Note(!) thereof of the Civil Service Regulation, as amended by the 
Government of Uttar Pradesh. The facts, in brief, are that the 
respondent was first appointea in 1931 on one year's probation 
to the post of Cu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.